Iglesia ni Cristo whenever faced with the challenge: which is the true chuch would most likely quote Lamsa’s translation of Acts 20:28 which reads,

“The church of christ which he purchased with his own blood”

Its rather church of christ they say than church of god. Bec if it is church of god then its wrong. They then readily supplement it with a question: does god have blood? And often they solicit the supporting commentary of George Lamsa which reads:

“The Eastern text reads: “the Church Of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. Jewish Christians could not have used the term “God”, because in their eyes God is spirit, and spirit has no flesh and blood. It was Jesus of Nazareth who shed his blood on the cross for us, and not God.”[George M. Lamsa, New Testament Commentary, pp. 149 – 150]

Understanding the underlying reason to this conclusion would suggest it this way: “he purchased with his own blood” implies its precedent church of god as suggestive of ownership by which the owner god refers to the pronoun “he” who purchased the church with his own blood therefore brought out the idea of god having blood, but does god have blood?

Obviously, he has none therefore to have thought in this way, that god purchased the church by his blood is in a way erroneous therefore we cannot accept god as the purchaser. It could mean otherwise. Considering context, we have a clearer view how it should be explained:

Acts 20:18-19,21,28
[18]And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
[19]Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
[21]Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
[28]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he (the lord) hath purchased with his own blood.

As clearly illustrated, if we consider context, the lord jesus christ is the preceding subject in verse 19 and confirmed in verse 21 called as lord therefore to have said he hath purchased logically refers to the lord as preceding context, therefore the lord jesus purchased the church of god by his blood. It never indicated by any slight notion that god has blood. It was referring actually to what context said as lord. That as only referring to Jesus.

So to ask, does god have blood, is in disregard of context, and employing bias for one’s own faith, so to say that church of christ is the right translation for Acts 20:28 is now in jeopardy seeing that it lacks foundation of certainty.



I encountered some INC members that postulate the idea that logic cannot be used in biblical interpretation in as much that its an agent that is limited within human standards as they quoted:

1 Corinthians 2:4-5
[4]And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
[5]That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13
[13]Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

They reiterate on the prerequisite of human wisdom, yet is logic in biblical interpretation be that shallow to have its tenure on human wisdom?

Not a reality so, as logic could have been by divine intervention:

Philippians 2:12-13
[12]Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
[13]For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Therefore it is not by private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20
[20]Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

A christian who congregates in the church must have interpretation, that is, an inspired interpretation–by the holy ghost.

1 Corinthians 14:26
[26]How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Such interpretation of biblical truth must be inherent of discernment–that as inclusive of logic.

Ecclesiastes 8:5-6
[5]Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man’s heart discerneth both time and judgment.
[6]Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him.

It say, a wise man discern judgment. So if a church discerns that judgment must be that:

A. Members must watch TV

B. Bible must be 66 books

C. Lamsa’s “church of christ” is correct than kjv’s “church of god”

How shall he do it with the absence of logic when fact is, there is no direct biblical attestation in these regard?

It needs logic. So where is logic in the bible?

Hebrews 5:14
[14]But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern (Greek ‘diakrisis’: judicial estimation) both good and evil.

So discernment of good and evil is through judicial estimation, that as inevitable of one’s judgment we may as well call logical assessment.

That in so doing, in righteousness.

John 7:24
[24]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

That in matters of human life, all things done must be by faith.

Romans 14:22-23
[22]Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
[23]And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So if judicial estimation is not inclusive of logical assessment as partly, an agent of judgment then how do you prove to us by faith that is, biblically that we must watch TV with the absence of any logical assessment?


Mga INC, kita sa paguusap namin, na sa labas ng iglesia dios ang humahatol at kita don na dalawa uri ng hatol: kaligtasan (o pagtatagumpay) at kaparusahan. So hinde ibig sabihin pag sinabing hatol e parusa na yon agad kasi pwede ring kaligtasan, di po ba? Ipinakita ko naman na me hinatulang nagtatagumpay, di ba, so hinde ibig sabihin ng hatol o hahatulan e parusa na agad kasi pwedeng kaligtasan o pagtatagumpay ang resulta non.

So posibleng me kaligtasan sa labas dahil hahatol pa muna ang dios.

Revelation 20:12
[12]And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were JUDGED out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Meron bang hinatulang ligtas? Meron po.

Revelation 2:7
[7]He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Yung daw nagtagumpay e ligtas na–makakakain sa tree of life. Paanong nagtagumpay?

Romans 3:4
[4]God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Pagkatapos palang hatulan tsaka nagtagumpay so ligtas na pagkatapos hatulan. So kita dito, na hinde lahat ng hatol e parusa kundi pwede ring kaligtasan so nong sinabi


Hinde pala ibig sabihin non e lahat na ng nasa labas e paparusahan, kasi pwede ring kaligtasan ang hatol.

So INC, anong batayan nyo na sa labas e walang kaligtasan?


I know of two kinds, but most probably there are 3 if we include satan.

But i wont indulge elsewhere than on the two kinds you would be most interested in. Firstly, the divine gods. Secondly, the mortal gods. Both in their distinct and separate aspect, true gods.

Let me point out how there is two on the necessity to elaborate on the second kind rather than on the divine gods.

How was there two distinct true gods?

Firstly, moses was made a god.

Exodus 7:1
[1]And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Being made a god then he was a true god as obviously, god dont create counterfeits, right? He makes only real creation. Much so, he dont profess any leaning to false oaths as it say:

Zechariah 8:17
[17]And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

God dont make false oaths therefore to say that he made moses a god then that as literally is truth. Moses was a god and in truth a god, therefore, a true god.

Likewise when saying:

Psalms 82:6-7
[6]I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7]But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Being unable to commit false oaths, therefore god intended these people as gods in the true sense of the word, true gods. How come?

Cannot they be gods by name but not in essence true gods in their category as mortals?

1 Corinthians 8:5
[5]For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Clearly, the verses categorizes gods in these aspect:

1. Called gods by name only. These are not true gods.

2. Many gods which is not in the category of the first. Meaning, this includes true gods.

Therefore to say that some mortals are true gods is bec nowhere did god categorized them as simply “called gods by name only”, and bec god makes truthful oaths, therefore, calling some mortals gods is then a truthful oath, in essence, true gods.

Much so, moses was made a god therefore he was a true god. Can god make falsehood? Therefore moses was not a false god but in essence, a true god.

How could this reality distinguish the two kinds of true gods? Its bec god said this:

Isaiah 43:10

[10]Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God is eternal. He has no “before me” and “after me” bec he has no beginning or end, so to say that no god was made before or after him was simply to say, he never made any god in whatever time of eternity. The problem is, he made moses a god. So it seems contradictory, therefore, to resolve it–context would suggest two kinds of true gods, the divine and mortal.

What god dont make before him or after him is a divine god. He somehow made mortals gods, in that essence as mortal gods distinct from divine gods yet in essence, both in their categories, true gods. How come?

Moses was made a true god.


Indeed, he was called like that. Let me quote:

1 Corinthians 15:47
[47]The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

So was he a “true man”? Is it a literal man?

Nope. How could he be a literal man when he had preexistence?

John 6:38
[38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

By saying, i came down from heaven, is a direct testament of preexistence. Its like saying i came from manila. The speaker is the one who came from manila therefore if he is a living entity here then he must also be a living entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. Its the same thing with christ, if he is a talking entity on earth then he must be a talking entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. By that we can say, he had preexistence as a living talking entity in heaven.

Coincidentally, john confirmed such reality. That preexistent living being was the word.

John 1:1-2
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

That word was preexistent in the beginning with god, therefore, he was god. Much so as corroborated by John 1:18 in the manuscripts of john called P66 and P75 even in the syriac peshitta calling jesus as the only begotten god.

Being god, he cannot be man in nature.

John 4:24
[24]God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39
[39]Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

By this reality, the notion that jesus as a man came from heaven, is questionable. It only proves that when he was called as a man from heaven it was not in the literal sense. He was merely called man but not in essence man. Like he was called the word in john 1:1 but in reality is not a literal word. Its just an ascription to denote a deeper meaning, that he was the embodiment of the word. In relation, being called man is an ascription only relative how he was once inside a human form.

How do they challenge this?

They said, john the baptist too was from god, so they were asking? Did he literally came from god?

John 1:6
[6]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The thing is, if we consult greek terminology, there is no guarantee that it should be from God bec it could be by God. And seeing the reality of Jesus as a true god in john 1:18 the only begotten god then it speaks really of a literal coming from heaven to pursue the reality of preexistence when he said i came down from heaven.

Therefore, can we say that saying jesus is a man from heaven speaks of a literal man? Or should we see this in the biblical scope that he literally came from heaven being a true god himself?

It would be clarified by asking, did a literal man came from heaven? Was there a literal man with flesh and blood in heaven then came to earth entered mary’s womb and become a fetus?

Its impossible, right?

The only acceptable reason was, he was god in heaven (john 1:1-2,18) then come to earth (heb10:5), then indwells in a human host and born as jesus christ.

1 John 4:2
[2]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come en (into) the flesh is of God:


Hinde po. Ang anghel e isa lamang sa mga uri ng sugo. Ilan dito e propeta, teacher, priest at pastor. Wala po sa bible na ang sugo na tao e anghel. Alamin natin ibig sabihin ng sugo sa strongs dictionary published in the 1890’s. Itoy hango sa mga verses na ito: (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13) (Malakias 2:7), (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Greek: ἄγγελος
Transliteration: aggelos
Pronunciation: ang’-el-os
Definition: From ἀγγέλλω aggellō (probably derived from G71; compare G34; to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor: – angel messenger.


A. a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher)

B. a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

Una, ang sabi sa A ang sugo e me iba ibang uri. Ito ay anghel, propeta, pari at guro. Pangalawa, sa B ang sugo e me dalawang uri. Ito ay anghel at pastor. So sa kabuuan ang mga sugo e anghel, propeta, pari, guro at pastor… so mali na sabihing pag sinabing sugo e katumbas na ng anghel kasi pwede rin itong propeta o pari etc…

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel. Ito nga yung propeta, pari, guro at pastor. Walang mababasa na ang sugo e katumbas ng anghel. Wala pong mababasa na ang taong sinugo e anghel. Ang mga batayan nila e kinuha nila sa mga translation na nagsasabi ng ganito:

Mga Bilang, 20:16 – At nang kami ay dumaing sa Panginoon ay dininig niya ang aming tinig, at nagsugo siya ng isang anghel, at inilabas kami sa Egipto: at, narito, kami ay nasa Cades, na isang bayan na nasa dulo ng iyong hangganan: DS

Malachi 2:7
[7]For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the angel of the LORD of hosts.

Si moses at mga sacerdote ang tinutukoy na anghel pero tama bang salin ito?

Ang hebrew word na ginamit e eto:

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Ang tama pong salin kung ibabatay sa hebrew definition e messenger na maaaring propeta na tumutukoy kay moses o teacher na tumutukoy sa mga sacerdote.

a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher):

Pero kailanman hinde tama ang anghel na tumutukoy kay moses at mga sacerdote dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Kahit si john the baptist e anghel din daw pero mali ding salin yon.


Dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Ang mababasa ay spirito ang mga anghel.

Hebrews 1:7,13-14
[7]And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[13]But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[14]Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

So saan mababasa na me taong anghel? Wala po.

Uulitin ko:

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel.

Ang kanilang depensa e dahil daw sa tulad nito:

maaari bang itawag sa isang tao ang salitang “anghel” , ayon naman sa kilalang Bible Dictionary?

“Angel a word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a “messenger,” and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Sam. 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isa. 42:19; Hag. 1:13), of priests (Mal. 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Rev. 1:20)… The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers.” (Meaning of Angel from Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

Sa Filipino,

“Anghel isang salitang nangangahulugan, pareho sa Hebreo at sa Griego, na isang “sugo”, na ito’y ginamit upang tukuyin ang sinomang kinatawan na sinusugo ng Diyos upang isagawa ang kaniyang mga layunin. Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)… Ang pangalan ay hindi tumutikoy sa kanilang kalagayan kundi sa kanilang tungkulin bilang mga sugo.”

Kung titingnan ang kanilang patunay na Easton’s Bible Dictionary e meron na siyang biblical interpretation na sabi anghel ang mga sugo, propeta, sacerdote at ministro, so ang tanong: Personal interpretation ba niya to o hinde? Own understanding ba niya ito o hinde?

[5]Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Halimbawa, ang sabi:

Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Naipakita ko na sa taas yung hebrew at greek word na ginamit at itoy: malak at aggelos na tumutukoy sa sugo at ang mga uri ng sugo na hinde lamang anghel yung sugo, so ang tanong, bakit inihahalintulad ang anghel sa sugo gayong hinde naman?

Kaya hinde maiiwasang maitanong din, ito bang source nila e nagsasalita by inspiration o by private interpretation?


Our premise would be the INC’s concept of monotheism that when it say: Beside me, there is no god, speaks a clear invocation of monotheism and that in general terms, universal and a prescription for all mankind.
Lets check the reference point for such concept:

Isaiah 44:6
[6]Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8
[8]Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:21
[21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

First, let me establish that these words are prescriptive only for mosaic Israel as it say:

Hosea 13:4
[4]Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Exodus 34:14
[14]For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Moreover, during those time, israel was the only nation with a true god:

2 Kings 5:15
[15]And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

Therefore, when it say “beside me there is no god” was logically for that only nation with a true god–israel therefore prescriptive only for them.

Therefore when it say:

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any

It should have been emphasized as a prescriptive truth only for mosaic israel in terms of recognition for worship, that for mosaic israel there is no god beside god almighty they should recognize neither god knew any for them to worship. It should have been this way:

Is there a God beside me for israel? yea, there is no God; I know not any for israel to worship…

Did god lie therefore when he said, there is no god beside him, when fact is jesus is too a true god?

No. Its not a lie to prescribed himself only for israel to recognize as their only god for worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only true god. He only prescribed himself as their sole god to recognize for worship being the supreme authority. Its like this: though jesus and i are true god, you only have to recognize me as your god to worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only god bec even jesus is too a true god. And never did he prescribe jesus to be their god.

JOHN 1:18 no man hath seen god at anytime, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD which was in the bosom of the father…

A site has this to say:


μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

  • Greek witnesses
    • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
    • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
    • Codex א – Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
    • Codex B – Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
    • Codex C* – Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
    • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
    • Codex L – Regius (A.D 701-800)
  • non-Greek witnesses
    • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
    • Diatessaron (“Out of Four”) of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
    • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
    • Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
    • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
    • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
  • Late Greek
    • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus’ (A.D. 130-202) ‘unigenitus deus’ in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.

Wallace again:

At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)


But how about it when they said, there is only one true god quoting:

John 17:3
[3]And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The thing is, nothing is concrete with this verse as nowhere did it confirm an only true god of the whole universe, and having John proclaimed jesus’ divinity: the only begotten god then by context, it should have been interpreted in harmony. It could mean other things than “the only true god of the whole universe”. Therefore, its an ambiguous verse having the context of John 1:18.

It could be:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (in heaven) and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (on earth).

Clearly, nothing is concrete with any of the INC’s defenses of monotheism as fact is, it could be interpreted in a contextual way considering John 1:18’s the only begotten god.

It need logic to do so, for these to be in harmony.

The question is, what if John 1:18 the only begotten god is correct scripture, then the biblical interpretation aforementioned above is correct, or is it?

This is how they tried to refute it:

Even Ignatius(35-110AD) who believe that Jesus is a God and Tertullian(160-220AD) who believes in Trinity used the term “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”, because that is the ONLY translation they have during their time. If there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD” translation during that time, I’m sure they would not give a second thought using that translation, for that “ONLY BEGOTEN GOD” translation will promote their doctrine. But there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON” translation during that time.
“only begotten Son”(Ignatius Bishop of Antioch; Syria Philippians II; ca. 110)
“only begotten Son”(Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Gaul; Against Heresies III, 11.6 ; ca. 180)
“only begotten Son”( (Clement Alexandria; Pedagogue I, 3; ca. 200)
“only begotten Son”, “The Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom.” (Tertullian Africa; Against Praxeas VIII; ca. 212)

Granting that this is correct, doubt would still arise bec there are uncertainties whether Ignatius, Irenaeus, clement etc… had with them all existing manuscripts or if all of these had been translated then as conclusive basis to say, there was never a manuscript then that say, the only begotten god bec they have all manuscripts with them and translated as reference materials. But did they have all manuscripts as confirmatory?

Did they have all existing manuscripts as validating that indeed there is no the only begotten god in any of the manuscripts?

Therefore they must have used only what was available was to them during that time and was deprived of really authentic scripture–the john 1:18’s monogenes theos.

Fact is, the lack of confirmation of integral possession of all manuscript has weakened such opposition thereby strengthening the reality of Jesus deity by the fact that some manuscripts of John regarded him as the only begotten god.